A survey released this week by CSC (NYSE: CSC), a provider of technology-enabled solutions and services, and Chemical Week magazine found that over the next five years regulatory compliance will advance to being a major driver of competitive advantage for the chemical industry. The survey questioned senior compliance and sustainability officers at global chemical companies to identify their focus on preparedness for compliance with industry regulations.

Approximately 75 percent of respondents said they are “re-tooling their product development efforts in response to pressures from current and expected regulatory programs.” Andre Veneman, director of sustainability for Akzo Nobel, stated that, “Akzo Nobel primarily is responding to this increasing regulatory complexity by adapting its product portfolio to greener products. The company currently classifies 18 percent of its products as 'ecopremium,' but targets an increase to 30 percent in 2015.”

In terms of GHG reporting, most survey respondents stated that their focus is on mandatory GHG reporting requirements from EPA, defining a carbon strategy, and actively determining their company-wide carbon governance structure. The survey found that while nearly 70% of respondents are confident they can achieve compliance with manual reporting using spreadsheets, they report concerns about their ability to manage the resulting operational changes accompanying the regulatory changes.  

For complete results of the survey, visit www.csc.com/09sustainabilitysurvey.

This week kicks off a busy news cycle with multiple events focused on climate change. In New York City alone, Kate Galbraith reminds us that the Clinton Global Initiative, and Climate Week N.Y.C. are upon us as climate change moves to the top of the agenda. There’s also the UN Summit on Climate Change that convened this morning as foreign leaders come together to address issues regarding the devastating state of global warming.

President Obama was in attendance and offered remarks that reflected the country’s commitment to reducing carbon emissions. China’s President Hu Jintao will also address the United Nations and will likely offer “carbon intensity” targets instead of caps on its overall greenhouse gas emissions. All eyes and ears will be on them since China and the United States together produce over 40 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.

One meeting that has everyone buzzing is the G20 Pittsburgh Summit on September 24-25. World leaders of the top 20 countries that represent 85 percent of the world’s economy will work to reach a global agreement on how to move the world to a low carbon economy. An article by the BBC summed up the challenge as needing to curb greenhouse gas emissions while sustaining economic prosperity at the same time.

We’ve thrown our hat into the event ring, as well. On Thursday, September 22, Enviance’s CEO, Larry Goldenhersh will be speaking at The FT Energy Business Conference in NYC. He’ll be a panelist on the “Exploring Carbon Risk Management” track. On Friday, Enviance will co-host a panel discussion with The FT to provide senior management with insight into the entire scope of responsibility for carbon accounting.

Of course, all of these events set the stage for the larger gathering at the Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen this December.

(Photo courtesy of AP)

As a follow up to our recent post on the estimated costs of the proposed Waxman Markey bill, we came across a study that finds legislation could bring more benefits than expected. The Institute for Policy Integrity at the NYU School of Law has published a cost-benefit analysis study of the bill claiming that returns would be almost double for every dollar spent.

Entitled, “The Other Side of the Coin,” the study points to the “social cost of carbon” and defines it as a monetary measure of the incremental damage resulting from GHG emissions. It goes on to say that current social cost of carbon calculations involve a great deal of uncertainty that likely results in underestimation. However, according to their calculations using the value of $19 per ton of carbon pollution, income to the US government could generate as much as $5.2 trillion. Keith Johnson of the Wall Street Journal put it best, “As flawed as it may be, the Waxman-Markey climate bill makes economic sense, offering benefits worth at least twice as much as it costs, if not more.”